Ok, not really, but this was careless: On January 24th (and yes, I'm running a bit slow here), introducing BTA's support of the "Idaho Stop Sign" bill (bicyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield, after yielding right-of-way to pedestrians and others), the picture to the right was used as an illustration.

This picture was not an accident: it was taken by BTA website editor Jonathan Maus. I know that many bicyclists will take any comment about safety and helmets as an excuse to cry about the "nanny state" and "we're grown-ups and can take care of ourselves" but this is still irresponsible blogourlism. As a life-long bicyclist (nearly fifty years of pedaling) and as someone whose life was recently saved by a helmet, I see no reason not to use illustrative photos that also illustrate safety.

The Idaho law will only pass if legislators and others believe that the majority of bicyclists are going to be responsible and safe, as I think the majority will be. To that end, online discussions that show bicyclists being unsafe — and riding without a helmet is as unsafe as you get, whether it's a matter of choice or not — only give credance to arguments that bicyclists are not to be trusted with a grown-up's law. I support the law (with addendums, to be discussed later) and if it were to fail because too many bicyclists and biking advocates refuse to acknowledge the need to be uber-diligent in how their arguments are presented, that would be more than a shame.

It would be the fault of careless, politically naive advocates who could have done a lot better.